The Post Democratic Debate Analysis

Looking forward to some confrontation in what was otherwise predicted to be a dull exchange in the most recent Democratic debate, viewers watched to see how Clinton and Sanders would handle what some in the punditocracy have begun calling “datagate.” Those hoping for heated moments were disappointed as Sanders quickly explained and apologized for what transpired. When David Muir asked Sanders: “So, does Secretary Clinton deserve an apology tonight?”, Sanders answered unequivocally: “Yes. I apologize.” The fiercest moment actually occurred when Sander’s accused the Democratic National Committee of “an egregious act” by cutting off his campaign’s access to their own data. ABC News panned to Debbie Wasserman Schultz during the charge. Her consternation was evident in her non-verbals.

Although there were some points of difference in the debate, nothing approached the divisions evident in the fifth Republican debate. I’ll briefly discuss some of the evidence candidates used, some interesting contrasts in word choice and offer my scorecard on how the candidates performed.

Evidence in the debate

Democrats did use some statistics, but fewer than Republicans during their debate a few nights before. The most skillful use came from Sanders when he gave a hypothetical example of the impact of the tax increase needed to fund paid family and medical leave: What the legislation is, is $1.61 a week. Now, you can say that’s a tax on the middle class. It will provide three months paid family and medical leave for the working families of this country. I think, Secretary Clinton, $1.61 a week is a pretty good invest [sic].” We often hear candidates speak about how raising the minimum wage would increase food prices in restaurants. An example such as the one Sanders used would contribute much to putting things in perspective.

All three candidates used narrative—some more successfully than others. O’Malley recitation of his friend’s interaction with his son stood out as the least successful. [Watch O’Malley’s story] It was meant to be an illustration of how Trump’s rhetoric has instilled anxiety in the American Muslim community:

“My friend Kashif, who is a doctor in Maryland; back to this issue of our danger as a democracy of turning against ourselves. He was putting his 10 and 12-year-old boys to bed the other night. And he is a proud American Muslim. And one of his little boys said to him, “Dad, what happens if Donald Trump wins and we have to move out of our homes?” These are very, very real issues. This is a clear and present danger in our politics within.”

The problem was the obviousness with which O’Malley had packed this story into his debate tool bag and then waited for what he thought would be the appropriate moment to employ it. The narrative lacked both spontaneity and fidelity. It was a gambit that failed.

On the subject of evidence, let’s turn to assertions made by candidates about each other and the Republicans. (When I say “Republicans,” I should say “Trump,” who was mentioned eighteen times and the only Republican candidate named.)

Clinton on Trump. One of the biggest stories of the most recent democratic debate on December 18 is Hilary Clinton’s charge that Donald Trump’s discourse works against American interests. Immediately after the charge, Twitter followers on the right were demanding to see the “video” evidence. But let’s step back and look at what Clinton actually said:

“And we also need to make sure that the really discriminatory messages that Trump is sending around the world don’t fall on receptive ears. He is becoming ISIS’s best recruiter. They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists. So I want to explain why this is not in America’s interest to react with this kind of fear and respond to this sort of bigotry.”

She did NOT say that he was appearing in ISIS recruiting videos, but did state that his existing videos were used as a recruiting tool. That’s not too hard to believe, but is pretty hard to prove. What would constitute evidence for her assertion? I suppose if you could produce video documenting ISIS recruiters showing people Trump campaign speeches, you’d have substantial evidence, but it’s unlikely to turn up. So has Clinton made an assertion for which she has no proof? Yes. Does she imply that his statements on Muslims and Islam flame anti-American sentiment? Yes. Does her statement fall within the category of outright untruth? No.

Sanders on Healthcare Costs. Bernie Sanders on Health Care Costs in the U.S. Sanders asserted that U.S. citizens pay three times what those in the U.K. pay for health care and two times what those in France pay. According to PolitiFact, the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation support his assertion.

O’Malley on Clinton. Martin O’Malley discussed Clinton’s fluid gun control position. O’Malley asserted that Clinton has changed her position on gun control during different election cycles. While running for the Senate in 2000, she did call for a national registration system, a position she dropped when she ran against Obama in 2008. Overall, there were fewer facts that warranted checking than in the last Republican debate, but there were fewer people making assertions as well.

The Rhetorical Arrows That Failed to Find Their Mark

Clinton was certainly the dragon if not to slay, then at least to mortally wound during the debates. ABC anchor David Muir painted the target when he asked: “But Secretary Clinton, I did want to ask you, the last time you ran for president, Fortune Magazine put you on its cover with the headline Business Loves Hillary, pointing out your support for many CEOs in corporate America. I’m curious, eight years later, should corporate America love Hillary Clinton?” Clinton reduced her vulnerability with her glib response that “Everybody should.” O’Malley then loosened his arrow: “…I have demonstrated the ability to have the backbone to take on Wall Street in ways that Secretary Clinton never, ever has. In fact, in the last debate, very shamefully, she tried to hide her cozy relationship with Wall Street big banks by invoking the attacks of 9/11.” But he failed to inflict even minor pain, much less a wound.

O’Malley also made a veiled reference to the other candidates’ ages (Clinton is 69, Sanders is 74 and O’Malley is 52) when he said: “May I offer a different generation’s perspective on this?” His efforts summoned boos from the audience. It was a thinly veiled attempt to distinguish himself on grounds voters have found unimportant.

Words Matter

In contrast to the most recent Republican debate (where some variation of “safety” or “security” was mentioned 101 times) the Democrats used a variation of “safety” or “security” a total of nineteen times (excluding “safety” in the context of gun safety and excluding “security” in the context of Social Security and the U.N. Security Council).

“ISIS” was mentioned fifty-eight times during the debate and “ISIL” was mentioned six times (in each case by O’Malley). Compare this to the last Republican debate where “ISIS” was mentioned 104 times.

Scorecard

The moderators did a much better job with the questions and with handling the candidates than we’ve seen in previous debates. [See post on how debates have failed]. The Democrats seem as oblivious to discussions of immigration reform as the Republicans are to discussions of gun control.

Clinton and Sanders were able to maintain the support of their followers and probably found few defecting to another candidate. O’Malley had the most to gain, but made little forward progress. Of course O’Malley got to speak significantly less than the other two candidates.